Could a Cave Hyena Have Made a Musical Instrument? a Reply to Cajus G
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Arheološki vestnik 67, 2016, str. 401–407 401 Could a cave hyena have made a musical instrument? A reply to Cajus G. Diedrich Ivan TURK, Matija TURK, Borut TOŠKAN Izvleček [Ali je jamska hijena res lahko naredila glasbilo? Odgovor Cajusu G. Diedrichu] Prispevek je odgovor na članek Cajusa G. Diedricha, ki je bil v elektronski obliki objavljen na spletni strani Royal Society Open Science. Diedrichov članek je poln hudih faktičnih napak. Avtor podcenjuje in ne upošteva arheoloških rezultatov in muzikoloških izsledkov raziskovanja neandertalskega glasbila, zato članek lahko povzroča veliko znanstveno škodo. V odgovoru smo se omejili le na komentiranje najhujših napak. Ključne besede: neandertalsko glasbilo, Divje babe I, preluknjane kosti, tafonomija Abstract The contribution is a reply to the article written by Cajus G. Diedrich and published online on the web site of the Royal Society Open Science. Diedrich’s article is fraught with factual errors and underestimations of the archaeological and musicological findings. As such, it may cause great scientific damage and should thus not remain uncommented. Only the most prominent errors are addressed. Keywords: Neanderthal musical instrument, Divje babe I, perforated bones, taphonomy The article by Cajus G. Diedrich (Diedrich 2015) or Neanderthal flute (hereinafter musical instru- entitled “’Neanderthal bone flutes’: simply products ment), from Divje babe I (hereinafter DB) (Turk, of Ice Age spotted hyena scavenging activities on cave Dirjec, Kavur 1995). The article is, alas, fraught bear cubs in European cave bear dens”, published with factual errors and underestimations of the online on the web site of the Royal Society Open Sci- archaeological and musicological findings, all of ence1, reopens the old question of artificial (Brodar, which may cause damage to the two disciplines. Bayer 1928) versus natural origin (Kos 1931) of the We therefore feel obliged to respond, for the sake holes in cave bear bones, which includes the best of both archaeology and musicology. documented find of this kind identified already We originally intended to publish this reply in the in its first publication as a potential Mousterian same journal, i.e. Royal Society Open Science. The editorial board rejected our contribution 1 http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/4/140022 twice, however, on the grounds of it initially being 402 Ivan TURK, Matija TURK, Borut TOŠKAN too long, not concise and not persuasive enough. 2.) the ESR age (50–60 ka) of the cave bear Because of the importance of the reply, we decided to teeth in Layer 8a (Blackwell et al. 2007; 2009), i.e. seek publication elsewhere. The text below presents the cemented upper part of Layer 8, which also the original version of our reply. revealed the musical instrument in the immediate vicinity of two hearths (I. Turk, Dirjec, M. Turk Apart from numerous inaccuracies, the article 2014a, Fig. 14.3; – Turk, Kavur 1997, Figs. 10.10; “’Neanderthal bone flutes’: simply products of Ice 10.11) and few artefacts; Age spotted hyena scavenging activities on cave bear 3.) the increasing/decreasing numerical ages of cubs in European cave bear dens” also contains most other layers (Turk 2007b, Fig. 7.1; – Turk et serious factual errors that can be found in the al. 2006, Fig. 6); following statements made by Diedrich: 4.) the analysis of the sediments (Blackwell et al. 2009; – Skaberne, I. Turk, J. Turk 2015) and 1 – “The first ‘Neanderthal cave bear bone the associated palaeontological evidence (Turk flute’ from the Middle Palaeolithic was believed to 2007b) (animal remains, pollen, charcoal), which have been discovered in the 1920s from Potočka provided a reliable chrono-climatic span of the Zijalka...”(Diedrich 2015, 1). whole investigated profile, with four documented The site in question only yielded Aurignacian hiatuses, from OIS (MIS) 5d to OIS (MIS) 3 (first (Upper Palaeolithic) finds, as has been observed half) with a clearly definable border between OIS 5 from the very beginning of excavations onwards. and OIS 4–3 (Turk et al. 2006, Fig. 5); and The finds include a mandible with holes (Brodar, 5.) the fact that the European sites dating to the Bayer 1928, Taf. 2), which has been interpreted period during which Layer 8a formed (OIS 4/OIS as a ‘flute’, but never collocated with the adjective 3 boundary) thus far only revealed the bones of Neanderthal. Neanderthal individuals, several hundred of them, while the earliest skeleton finds of the anatomi- 2 – “Another juvenile bear cub femur with holes cally modern newcomers date to the second half from Divje Babe I Cave, Slovenia ... was declared of OIS 3. twice incorrectly as the ‘oldest instrument’, a 43140 BP old ‘Neanderthal flute’ from layer 8. This was 3 – “This report of a ‘cave bear femur bone flute’ already contradictory to the results of archaeological was not the ‘oldest’, neither historically, nor by inventory that is well acceptably declared to be solely stratigraphy” (Diedrich 2015, 5). of, again, Cro-Magnon human Late Palaeolithic Certainly not true. The last Upper Pleistocene origin, and not of Mousterian (cf. [28] ... Therefore, Layer 2 in DB, deposited two metres above the there is no evidence for a Neanderthal (Mousterian) find in question, revealed the only positively iden- context ...”(Diedrich 2015, 3–5). “There, where tified Aurignacian level with a typical split-base [pseudo-bone flutes] are dated absolutely (Divje point (Turk 2014b, Fig. 10.1) and fossilized cave babe Cave 1), are without archaeological context bear remains. The numerical age of this level is at all” (Diedrich 2015, 14). determined with four different dates (39.7 ±4.7 ka, None of the above is correct. The date of 43140 26.2 ±5.3 ka, 35.3 ±0.7 BP, 29.7 ±0.3 BP) (Ku 1997; 14 BP (BP means a C date) is not among the roughly – Nelson 1997; – Blackwell et al. 2007; – Moreau 14 one hundred published numerical dates ( C, ESR et al. 2015). These chrono-stratigraphically place 230 234 and Th/ U) provided for the site by charcoal, the Aurignacian level in Layer 2 side by side with bone and tooth samples (Ku 1997; Nelson 1997; central European Aurignacian sites that revealed Blackwell et al. 2009). The generally accepted Mid- famous finds of flutes, such as Hohle Fels and dle Palaeolithic (Mousterian) age of the instrument Geissenklösterle. Coupled with other evidence, this and its association with the European Neanderthal proves conclusively that the musical instrument population has been confirmed by: found in the breccia of Layer 8a is both ‘histori- 1.) the presence of Levallois cores and flakes cally’ and stratigraphically earlier than all other in Layer 8 (M. Turk 2014, Pls. 20, 21; Fig. on p. Palaeolithic flutes. 156) and in the layers above and below it (M. Turk 2014, Pls. 10–19, 22–61) (altogether 13 Mid- 4 – “The bone’s holes on the dorsal side [of the dle Palaeolithic levels that yielded a total of 700 femur-flute] appear not to line up” (Diedrich 2015, 5). artefacts and 21 hearths); No? Take another look at Figure 5: 4a on page 6 of Diedrich’s article. Could a cave hyena have made a musical instrument? A reply to Cajus G. Diedrich 403 Tab. 1: All the cave bear femora from the 265 m3 of sediments in DB 1989–1999 excavations by Ivan Turk and Janez Dirjec. The finds are kept in the National Museum of Slovenia (Ljubljana) together with other skeletal parts and unde- terminable fragments. MNI Femur Femur Femur Femur shaft Femur jointsa (teeth) NISP complete shaft with hole(s) Fetus & new-born ? 441 13 (2.9%) 410 (93%) 18 (4%) 0 Cub & subadult 4814 1009b 15 (1.5%) 535 (53%) 459 (45.5%) 3 (0.56%) Adult 671 155 15 (9.7%) 38 (24.5%) 102 (66%) 0 SUM 5485 1605 43 (2.7%) 983 (61%) 579 (36%) 3 (0.3%) a Both epiphyses and metaphyses of cave bear cubs are taken into consideration. b Femur with unfused epiphyses. 5 – “Other authors doubted the ‘flute’ and human on ‘Neanderthal flutes’ in a scientifically correct origin however (e.g. [32–38]) or were fighting for manner, perform a comparative taphonomic study pro-arguments (e.g. [39, 40])” (Diedrich 2015, 6). between the sites he deems of key importance that In Endnotes 35 and 40, M. Otte, advocate of the only functioned as dens, on the one hand, and instrument interpretation, is incorrectly cited as the DB, on the other, all with taking into account the opponent, while the opponents C.-S. Holdermann differences and other circumstances. He should and J. Serangeli are incorrectly cited as advocates. also take into account the generally known fact that people in all archaeological periods very 6 – “... Slovenian author (cf. [43]), who misiden- successfully used bones as a source of both food tified: ... (b) the bone, by rotating it upside down and raw material. (see [44]), the 180º rotation of which is corrected The differences that Diedrich observes in the herein (Figure 5a), (c) the general bone taphonomy damage of the long marrow bones of cubs, sub- of cave bear bones ...” (Diedrich 2015, 7). adult and adult cave bears are, in fact, present Diedrich’s rotation of the femur-instrument does throughout time and space, hence also among the not appear to have a sound basis; his proximal- fossil finds from DB. For the Palaeolithic sites in distal orientation is anatomically incorrect and not South-Eastern Alps, Diedrich sees only hyenas supported by argumentation. In our publications, as the main culprit for bone fragmentation. This we oriented the femur diaphysis anatomically cor- simple explanation, however, is problematic, all the rectly, following these criteria: more by comparing it with the reliable statistical 1.) The cross section at the border between the data for the cave bear femora from DB presented diaphysis and the distal metaphysis is markedly here for the first time in Table 1.